From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org>
cc: "movead.li@highgo.ca" <movead.li@highgo.ca>,
        "ashutosh.bapat" <ashutosh.bapat@2ndquadrant.com>,
        "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: A bug when use get_bit() function for a long bytea string
In-reply-to: <84525289-3891-4368-9157-5452f53a6908@manitou-mail.org>
References: <84525289-3891-4368-9157-5452f53a6908@manitou-mail.org>
Comments: In-reply-to "Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org>
	message dated "Thu, 02 Apr 2020 18:58:59 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <562.1585857846.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:04:06 -0400
Message-ID: <563.1585857846@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org> writes:
> These 2 tests need to allocate big chunks of contiguous memory, so they
> might fail for lack of memory on tiny machines, and even when not failing,
> they're pretty slow to run. Are they worth the trouble?

Yeah, I'd noticed those on previous readings of the patch.  They'd almost
certainly fail on some of our older/smaller buildfarm members, so they're
not getting committed, even if they didn't require multiple seconds apiece
to run (even on a machine with plenty of memory).  It's useful to have
them for initial testing though.

It'd be great if there was a way to test get_bit/set_bit on large
indexes without materializing a couple of multi-hundred-MB objects.
Can't think of one offhand though.

			regards, tom lane